Work and "attitude change" needed to prevent myopia

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Aug 8, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    Subect: Calling scientific concepts bull s___

    This is a typical and tragic response to "Bates" and
    ANYONE who objects to the over-prescription of
    a minus lens -- and its consequences.

    They express their own private opinion, that
    the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and
    proceed to never pay any attention to
    the explicit experimental data that proves
    that the eye is dyanmic.

    Bates stated that a man with 20/70 vision, who
    receives a full-strength minus can expect
    to see his eye-chart go down at a fairly rapid
    clip -- to 20/200.

    A great mass of DIRECT experimental data
    CONFIRMS this behavior in the natural
    primate eye -- under direct "input" versus
    "output" conditions.

    And we remain "fozen" at that level, because
    the "majority opinion" jumped on Bates and
    crushed him.

    Let us "open our minds" to new alternatives,
    and work together towards a better
    (preventive) solution -- however hard
    that may be to accomplish.


    otisbrown, Aug 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    cbf Guest

    Sorry to intrude to your group, but I tried to post a question.
    Unfortunate it came back with rec. unknown. Used this address:
    cbf, Aug 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear CBF,

    I don't know where you are posting from, by you might
    try the following site:

    Then "click" on groups,

    then type

    You can then read the messages and post
    a response.


    otisbrown, Aug 9, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    "They express their own private opinion, that
    the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC"

    nobody in this newsgroup ever states anything about the dynamic nature
    of the eye, just you. it's "otis speak". it's a concept that you are
    very fond of, and hold onto tenaciously, even when it doesn't jive with
    the scientific data. hmm-- doesn't that mean you are biased?

    "A great mass of DIRECT experimental data
    CONFIRMS this behavior in the natural
    primate eye"

    no data supports this in the human eye. isn't that what we're talking
    about anyway-- humans? how come excessive minus doesn't cause humans
    to get more myopic (and in one study caused their myopia to increase
    less)? how come undercorrecting myopes doesn't slow progression (and
    in some studies even seems to increase progression)? how come
    uncorrected hyperopes don't decrease in their hyperopia? why not just
    admit your input-output dynamic model is invalid. why not be a real
    scientist and formulate a model that relates to reality and not your
    fantasy world.

    "And we remain "fozen""
    indeed. you are frozen in your dinosaur theory which is disproven over
    and over again.

    "Let us "open our minds" to new alternatives"
    indeed. its about time you entertained some new alternatives of
    p.clarkii, Aug 9, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    Simon Dean Guest

    Perhaps you could explain then how you managed this support request here
    Simon Dean, Aug 9, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: Response to Mike Tyners insistance that the natural
    primate eye is not "dynamic", an therefore there is not,
    nor can there ever be proof of of that relationship.

    It isn't that they can't see the solution,
    It is that they can't see the problem.

    G. K. Chesterton

    I appreciate the fact that you use a full-strength minus on
    your children and grand-children -- and believe that there is no
    proven relationship between the average visual-environment and the
    refractive state of the natural eye. You state the "majority
    opinion" very forcefully -- as I accept your statement as a honest
    affirmation of that belief. But equally, even your fellow ODs and
    some ophthalmologist do not share your majority-opinion, and are
    skeptical of the over-prescription of a minus lens.

    They believe that the "near" environment should be
    substantially "changed" with a strong plus -- if a negative
    refractive state is to be avoided. Their belief is strong enought
    and the experimental data convincing enought -- so that they have
    their own children (automatically) wearing a strong plus when the
    child's refractive state is zero (and vision is 20/20). Thus your
    position is understood, and honest, but the goal of prevention, as
    the second opinion is equally honest on a "medical" level.

    Selecting small-sample (n = 18) is not the way to reach a
    conclusion -- given the above facts. You selectively igore
    studies that deny the conclusion you have jumped to, and
    specifically the Oakley-Young study.

    A best, we must agree that these results are profoundly
    contradictory, and a healthy respect for true-prevention with the
    plus should continue to be developed.

    Calling EITHER the majority-opinion OR the second-opinion
    "bull s___" simply does not "work".

    Let us show more respect for BOTH these honest opinions and
    why they must continue to exist -- side by side.




    From: "Mike Tyner"

    Otis> This is a typical and tragic response to "Bates" and ANYONE
    who objects to the over-prescription of a minus lens -- and
    its consequences. This is why people in medicine respect
    the development of a "preventive" second-opinion.

    MikeOD> Perhaps you could explain why Dr. Goss's subjects wore
    excess minus but didn't get nearsighted faster.

    Goss> Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in
    ages from ...]

    [Comment: A very small "sample size" leads to very poor
    conclusions. Drawing a "long" conclusion, that a minus lens
    has NO effect on the refractive state of the natural eye --
    simply is not accurate, nor good science. Francis Young
    used a sample size of over 200. I suggest that Goss's study
    is meaningless for that reason. Yet another "political"
    study. OSB]

    MikeOD> Perhaps you won't. Perhaps there is no room in your
    philosophy for what happens in humans wearing glasses.

    [Comment: In fact there is the great concern about the "secondary
    effect" of a minus lens on the refractive state of the
    natural eye -- based on the conclusions about the natural
    primate (monkey) eye behavior. But you in your "wisdom"
    insist that all objective, scientific data concerning the
    proven behavior of the natural primate eye be EXCLUDED
    before the person begins reviewing this data himself. I
    suggest that the person who wishes to work on
    true-prevention take in to account this data that you
    exclude -- on your "authority". OSB]

    MikeOD> Perhaps they lied. Perhaps the kids had a spare pair of
    glasses at home and they switched glasses without telling

    [Comment: The small sample size is the reason for the failure to
    get accurate results -- not the kids actions. OSB]

    MikeOD> Perhaps you could point to SOME published article that
    actually measured human myopia and found it got worse in
    those wearing glasses.

    [Comment: The Oakley-Young Pullman study showed that a "high
    segment" and strong plus had the effect of stopping the
    eye's negative movement, i.e., the "down" rate for the plus
    group was approximately zero diopters, while the
    single-minus went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.
    Since you dispute this result, let us call this the "second
    opinion", that the natural (primate) eye behaves as a
    dynamic system. To see this effect more completely, and
    prove this "dynamic" characteristic of the natural eye is it
    necessary to perform "input" versus "output" testing on the
    natural primate eye, where the input (in diopters) is
    changed in a negative direction, and the "output" (in
    diopters) is measured accurately -- for the refractive
    states of all the eyes under test. OSB]

    MikeOD> Perhaps you can't.

    [Comment: I already did. OSB]

    MikeOD> In which case you're preaching myth in a science
    newsgroup. You are welcome to take your pleasant
    discussions to

    [Comment: If fact I have outlined a scientific test to verify
    that the natural eye is a sophisticated system, and behaves
    as we should expect such a system to behave. It is true
    that this is pure science, and not "medicine" as you like to
    say. But denying objective scientifc facts for the
    convenience of "quick-fixing" the public is hardly science,
    or a scientific approach to understanding the proven
    behavior of the natural eye. The real task is to help the
    person understand these issues and apply to concept
    correctly to keep his distant vision clear for life --
    assuming he has that goal and interest. OSB]

    Best, Otis





    Kenneth H. Oakley, MD.
    Bend, Oregon


    Francis A. Young, Ph.D.
    Primate Research Center
    Washington State University
    Pullman, Washington


    Forty-three Native American bifocal wearers grouped by yearly
    age levels from 9 to 15 with a mixed group of 6 to 8 year olds are
    matched on beginning age, sex, beginning refractive error and
    ending age with 104 Native American control subjects.

    Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal wearers are matched on the
    same criteria against 382 control subjects. Although the
    comparisons are made on each age group, the average annual rate of
    progression for the bifocal Native American subjects is -0.12 and
    -0.10 diopters in the right and left eyes respectively against a
    comparable rate of progression of -0.38 and -0.36 diopters for the
    control subjects

    These differences are significant but not as significant as
    those found on the Caucasian subjects of -0.02 and -0.03 diopters
    right and left eyes against -0.53 and -0.52 diopters for the
    controls. The meaning of these differences is discussed.


    [Comment: A difference in refractive state between the
    single-minus and the plus group, for 226 "test" versus 382
    "control" is HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT. These numbers far exceed the the
    n = 18 of the Goss review. OSB]


    Recently a number of investigators have reported successful
    control of the progression of myopia in children through the use
    of 1% atropine sulfate drops on a daily or alternate day basis.
    (Gostin, 1962; Bedrossian, 1966; Boyd, 1969; Dyer and Thel, Jr.,
    1970.) The success of the use of atropine for the control of
    myopia is believed to be related to the reduction of the
    accommodative response under the cycloplegic action of atropine.
    Young (1965) reported similar results on monkeys.

    If the reduction of the accommodative response is related to
    the progression of myopia, it seems reasonable that the reduction
    of the accommodative response through the use of plus reading
    glasses or through the use of bifocals on already myopic children
    should also have the effect of reducing the rate of progression of
    myopia in children. Such has been reported by a number of
    investigators (Betz, 1949; Gamble, 1949; Miles, 1957, 1962;
    Parker, 1958; and Warren, 1955.)

    Mandell (1959) found no evidence to support the concept of
    control of myopia progression through the use of bifocals.
    Mandell indicated that what is needed to establish the merits of
    bifocal control is a study in which bifocals are fitted to one of
    two groups of myopic patients comparable in age, degree of myopia,
    rate of progression before correction and environment. Under
    these conditions the rate of progression of the group given
    bifocals could then be easily checked against the rate of the
    control group. He further points out that a study of this type
    presents difficult operational procedures due to the problem of
    obtaining suitable subjects for the necessary length of time.
    Since Mandell was not able to carry out such a study he
    substituted an evaluation of patients in the clinical records of a
    practicing optometrist and proceeded to violate his own suggested

    Thus the patients who were fitted with bifocals had an
    average initial refractive error of 2.75 diopters with an average
    initial age of 14.3 years, while his control patients had an
    average initial refractive error of 1.48 diopters with an average
    initial age of 17.1 years.

    Clearly, the subjects who were fitted with bifocals were
    progressing at a higher rate since they had developed almost twice
    as much myopia by age 14 than the control subjects had by age 17.
    Also, since myopia is supposed to more or less stop progressing in
    the late teens (at the end of high school for individuals who do
    not go beyond high school) one could expect the 17 year old
    subjects to show less progression with or without bifocals than
    the younger subjects who were wearing bifocals.

    This lack of matching between the bifocal wearers and the
    controls make it difficult to draw conclusions, although Mandell
    does conclude that the wearing of bifocals had little or no effect
    on the progression of myopia.

    The present study represents an attempt on the part of the
    authors to achieve the suggestions made by Mandell in designing a
    study to determine the effect of bifocals on the progression of
    myopia and to compare these subjects with control subjects who
    demonstrate a similar age and initial refraction and who have been
    followed for a number of years.

    One of the difficulties of carrying on a longitudinal study
    which requires cooperation over time on the part of the subjects
    involved in the study is to achieve such cooperation consistently.
    This is particularly important in attempting to evaluate the
    effect of such drugs as atropine or devices as bifocals on the
    progression of myopia in children.

    If the drug is not used properly or at all, or if the bifocal
    is not fit properly or used, the investigator usually assumes that
    his instructions have been followed.

    However, without adequate checkups, he may be mislead by his
    subjects. In an attempt to evaluate this possibility, the present
    study utilized two groups for the investigation: one group of
    Caucasian children and the other of Native American children.

    Continued contact with the two groups of children clearly
    indicates that the Caucasian children were much more compulsive in
    wearing and using their bifocals than were the Native American
    children. Since there was a consistent difference in the two
    groups, one might expect a greater effect among the Caucasian
    children than among the Native American children.


    There were two groups of children available as subjects. The
    Native American population consisted of 156 children ranging in
    age from 6 to 21 with 54 children in the bifocal population and
    102 in the control population.

    The Caucasian population consisted of 441 subjects who are
    divided into 226 bifocal subjects and 215 control subjects with
    the same age range as the Native American subjects.

    In the Native American population 16 (29.6%) of the bifocal
    children were males and 38 (70.4%) were females while 36 (35.3%)
    of the control children were males and 66 (64.7%) were females. A
    Chi-square test of the sex distribution between the two groups
    indicates that there is no significant difference (Chi2 = 0.29
    with 1 degree of freedom).

    Correspondingly, in the Caucasian population 118 (50.2%) of
    the bifocal children were males and 117 (49.8%) were females while
    99 (41.6%) of the controls were males and 139 (58.4%) were
    females. A Chi-square test of the sex distribution between the
    bifocal and control groups for the Caucasian population yields a
    value of 3.20 with 1 degree of freedom, which is not significant.

    The subjects in all populations were grouped by ages using
    the age at which the bifocal subjects began to wear bifocals as
    the "beginning age" with the control subjects matched to these
    ages. There were sufficient subjects at all age levels between 9
    and 15 inclusive in the Native American and Caucasian populations
    to form yearly groups as well as a Caucasian group with beginning
    age 16.

    < snip of the remainder >


    Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984 Feb;61(2):85-93. Related
    Articles, Links

    Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic progression.

    Goss DA.

    Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages
    from 7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over
    the power required to correct their myopia exactly.

    < Major Snip -- The "Goss" sample size is to small to reach a
    meaningful conclusion -- see Francis Young's study of over 215
    persons in the test-group for a comparison. OSB >
    otisbrown, Aug 9, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    cbf Guest

    I just replied as I do now, by pushing the "Reply button" and a new
    windows came up.
    Tried to make a new string.
    cbf, Aug 10, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.